It’s embarrassing to admit this, but every few days I pull up the Twitter/X account of the Trotskyist group I was long a member of, and see what they’re up to. A therapist would probably call this a form of rumination and advise me to stop, but having spent 25 years immersed in the party I believed was the last best hope for humanity, it’s beyond me to feel indifferent. Like a woman long and happily divorced, I still feel compelled to haunt my ex’s social media. I see my ex-comrades howling for a “free, red Palestine,” glance at their turgid articles proclaiming the urgent necessity of proletarian revolution, and I wonder yet again what I ever saw in them. But a few days later, I’m back. 

It’s the people I can’t get out of my system. These are men and women I worked with, joked with, sat through interminable meetings with, ate curry dinners with, shared my most cherished beliefs with. We knew the outside world thought we were crazy or horrible, and knowing that just brought us closer. A sign of approval from a particularly respected comrade, or a motion of censure — for many years, these were the things that filled me with pure euphoria, or total despair. 

So I compulsively search for signs of them on my former party’s postings. I genuinely don’t care about members I don’t know, the young people who came around the party after I quit in 2016. I’m looking for people whose homes I’ve visited and dogs I’ve petted, whose voices still resound in my mind. When I find one of them captured in a photo, my feelings are mixed. There’s some small satisfaction in having scratched my itch, but mostly I feel sad. 

The party contained some truly talented writers, organizers, speakers. Some were thought to have had dazzling careers ahead of them in physics or economics or other fields. They gave up these futures to toil in obscurity, ostensibly for the liberation of humanity but ultimately to champion terror. There’s a strange private sorrow that comes with knowing what these women and men could give to the world, and seeing what they are. “Oh, John,” I think. Or “Oh, Karen,” or Mark, or Kate. What are you still doing there, wasting your life in that cult? 

During one such cyberstalking, I spot a picture of a diminutive, bespectacled, elderly man I once loved dearly. I’ll call him Harry. He was born in a Displaced Persons camp shortly after World War II. He was a fluid writer, responsible for much of the party’s coverage of the Middle East. He was prone to exclaiming “Oy, gevalt!” at moments of excitement. Whatever his family’s Holocaust experience, he grew up fervently Jewish and Zionist. He once told me that as a young person first seeing “Fiddler on the Roof,” he completely supported Tevye’s decision to declare Chava dead after she married a gentile. 

But there he is, photographed at a small demonstration in defense of a communist “pro-Palestinian” protester, Michael Pröbsting, then being prosecuted in Austria. I do a quick google and learn that on Oct. 7, Pröbsting’s organization issued a leaflet calling to “support the heroic Palestinian resistance,” “expel the occupiers” and struggle “for the destruction of the Zionist state.”

Harry looks almost unchanged but with a few more gray hairs, and he is carrying a placard that reads: “This Austrian-born Jew says: Isn’t one genocide enough for you?” 

Oh, Harry, I think. How did you come to adopt such a vile, impervious-to-reality stance against your own people? And what attracted all the other Jews who filled our virulently anti-Zionist party — including, for all those years, and however ambivalent I was about my late-discovered Jewish identity, me? 

I will spend the latter part of my life trying to understand the first. I’m far from there, but I’m sure part of the answer lies in our society’s twisted obsession with victimhood. 

As a teenager, I identified, in a weird, narcissistic way, with Anne Frank. I’ve since learned this is very common; privileged Western girls often “see themselves” in Anne not so much because they relate to her life, as that they’re fascinated by, and a bit jealous of, the martyrdom conferred by her death. As the philosopher Tzvetan Todorov wrote, “no one wants to be a victim, but everyone wants to have been one.” Victimhood confers moral authority.  

As the philosopher Tzvetan Todorov wrote, “no one wants to be a victim, but everyone wants to have been one.” Victimhood confers moral authority.

So we get competing groups vying for top victim status, like a gruesome kind of football. Jews have generously—maybe too generously—agreed to give the coveted ball to other, more deserving, oppressed groups. 

And it seemed to work, kind of — but only if everyone drew the right lessons from the ultimate experience of victimhood, the Holocaust. The mass murder of the Jews was made to represent a universal warning about man’s inhumanity to man, rather than a hideous chapter of Jewish suffering. Banging on about Jewish victimhood arouses resentment, and threatens the modern conviction that Jews are oppressors. So we get the grotesque spectacle of people trying to deny the Jews their own suffering or, even more perversely, use it against them. 

As I write this, I’m being bombarded on Twitter with messages telling me to stop killing babies, Epstein/Mossad innuendo, a “Hitler was right” meme, even an approving share of “Throw the Jew Down the Well.” Many of these messages come from people proclaiming their Jewishness. Like my ex-comrades, these Jews take particular pleasure in appropriating the most brutal reminders of Nazi savagery — “concentration camp,” “ghetto,” “genocide,” “Nazi” and, of course, “Holocaust” — to use against Israel, inflicting maximum pain on the Jewish people. And because they speak “As a Jew,” they can be assured of a warm welcome from the anti-Zionist tribe — until and unless they grow uneasy about their chosen tribe’s predilection for drawing horns and bloody fangs on prominent Jews, or the occasional swastika.

The great British novelist Howard Jacobson explains better than I possibly could how equating Zionist Jews with the Nazis is an attempt to retroactively “abrogate” the Holocaust, rendering it null and void. 

“Show that Jews intend a final solution on someone else,” he writes, “and we can fancy a retrospective justice to have been at work—the Jews being punished for a crime they were yet to commit. Call this Holocaust annulment.” The genocide of the Jews is turned morally inside out. The victims are transformed into the villains — making it not only appropriate, but righteous, to have another go at ridding the world of them.

“Show that Jews intend a final solution on someone else,” Howard Jacobson writes, “and we can fancy a retrospective justice to have been at work—the Jews being punished for a crime they were yet to commit.”

For generations, Westerners have hated Jews for reminding them of the monstrous crimes committed against them. Declaring the Jews guilty of those same horrors — hurling the charges, with sadistic glee, against the victims — is above all a way of casting off their own sense of guilt.

It was Hamas’ genius, Jacobson continues, to realize “how the drip, drip, drip of unremitting revilement in the western media and on western campuses had worn away [the Jews’] humanity. How sympathy had wearied and turned to scorn. How the west was of a mind to expunge its guilt.” 

The drip, drip, drip of revilement has become an Al-Aqsa Flood, and the dam is clearly not holding. 

Kathleen Hayes is the author of ”Antisemitism and the Left: A Memoir.”

“The Democrats think we’re stupid,” a young black friend recently told me. “That we’ll embrace whatever insanity they’re pushing.” I had asked him what he thought of Zohran Mamdani, 33, who leads the NYC race for mayor by 10 points. 

“Dude, how hard is it to condemn a phrase — globalize the Intifada — that the entire world knows means ‘kill the Jews’?” 

For the first couple of weeks after the June primary, there was disbelief that the city with the largest number of Jews outside of Israel could elect an inexperienced young man who has questioned Israel’s right to exist, praised Al-Qaeda, promised to arrest Prime Minister Netanyahu, and believes that mocking Hanukkah is normal for a U.S. politician. 

As the polls continue to show Zohran in the lead, that disbelief quickly turned to anger. We well know his biggest voting block: millennials. Millennials, 29-44, are not well liked here. They scream lies at our kids in schools, lack basic manners and appear to believe that work — a job — is beneath them.

“Finally, a millennial who wants to work,” a friend recently quipped. “What’s not to like?” said another. “He’s going to give away — for free! — a  country that never existed.” 

A couple of summers ago, I had an intense discussion with a Democratic operative here about the future of the party. “It’s never returning to classical liberalism,” she said definitively. “It will keep radicalizing till it’s forced to shut down.” But of course she wasn’t fully taking into consideration the (uneducated) millennial vote, as well as older Gen-Zers.

This is not to say that every Democrat has bought into Sharia socialism. But what’s abundantly clear is that nearly every Democrat won’t cross that red-green line and condemn Zohran — even if this means the end of the Democratic Party.

Many of us called ourselves socialists for a week or so in high school. Then we learned that socialism has never worked in any city, state or country where it’s been tried. Moreover, anyone who lives here knows that NYC runs best on an energetic capitalism. When NYC is at its best, people from all backgrounds are inspired to excellence, in all fields. China destroyed much of that with COVID; four years later, stores are still closed on Madison Avenue and the city lacks incentive, let alone inspiration.

Perhaps the scariest part of the Zohran mystique is that he isn’t dumb. He knows the policies he’s espousing — from government-run grocery stores to defunding the police — don’t work: he knows it will destroy NYC. 

So why is he espousing all of this? Power, of course. Power to BDS Israel, to stop ICE from deporting terrorists, and to globalize the Intifada. Just as his brethren are doing in London, Paris, Sydney and Madrid.

After 9/11, we weren’t allowed to use the I-word. The fact that a large, well-funded group of Muslim terrorists flew planes into buildings here and in D.C. was just a coincidence. The Islamophobia charge follows every criticism of Zohran; we would be disappointed if it didn’t. 

Meanwhile, many of us have already made plans to leave (Shalom, Governor DeSantis). But we’re also really concerned about the Orthodox and Hasidic communities in Brooklyn who may not leave, no matter what. 

The keffiyehs here have already spit on us, called us “dirty Jews,” threw rocks and glass bottles at us, and thanked Allah for the ability to slaughter us. 

What will happen when there’s no NYPD to protect us?

Sure, this type of persecution has marked our history. But we also know that our grandparents would be horrified to learn that the Democratic Party, the party they helped to build, would turn on us so easily. At this point, the term Jewish Democrat is an oxymoron.

The truth is, the West is at an inflection point. Will it continue to submit, as Douglas Murray has put it, to a form of fascism that pretends to be a religion? Or will Zohran become the bridge too far — the Islamic zealot who forces the U.S. to finally say: Enough. 

Jews came to the U.S. with nothing and helped build this country into the great liberal democracy that it’s been. You can’t walk a block in NYC without seeing Jewish names on buildings. Zohran is running on destruction and racism, looking to London’s no-go zones and Pakistani rape gangs as the city’s future. Did I mention that he also wants to abolish prisons?

But sure, Islamophobia is the real problem here.

Karen Lehrman Bloch is editor in chief of White Rose Magazine. 

At some point in the near future, social scientists will try to understand how our nation has devolved from the post-war economic investment in a thriving middle class to a distinctly feudal society characterized by extreme wealth and extreme poverty — relics of our once-greatness exhumed to perform a post-mortem examination of how we got here in 50 short years. An autopsy of the American Dream will reveal not a single fatal wound, but death by a thousand cuts — policy choices, market trends, and shifting priorities that have favored capital over community, the wealthy over the many, and short-term gain over long-term security. 

There was a time when the American Dream held a beacon of promise to both native-born Americans and to immigrants seeking shelter and refuge from the horrors of global wars and poverty. For much of the 20th century, this dream was not just an aspiration but a tangible reality for millions of Americans. However, today this utopian vision of American possibility through hard work has virtually disappeared from the economic landscape. This is the autopsy of the American Dream, a careful dissection of the forces that have hollowed out America’s middle class—one policy, one market trend and one lost opportunity at a time. The golden era of the middle class began after World War II, fueled by strong unions, rising wages, affordable homeownership and robust government investment in education and infrastructure. The GI Bill opened college doors, the FHA and VA loans made homeownership accessible, and pensions promised security after years of company loyalty. 

Yet, foundations are only as strong as the society’s commitment to maintaining them. Over the past half-century, a cascade of decisions and shocks have chipped away at these pillars. There is a distinct irony in that many of today’s political leaders — the very individuals who benefited from postwar investments in affordable housing, publicly funded education, and expanding social safety nets — now champion policies that undermine the very structures that helped build their own prosperity. 

Homeownership

The American Dream has always revolved around homeownership. Yet over the past 50 years, homeownership has grown increasingly out of reach for the middle class in America and entirely out of reach in many high-cost regions absent familial support and equity transfer. Looking at the relationship between wages and housing costs, wages for most American workers have been stagnant since the 1970s, while home prices have far outpaced inflation. Whereas housing was traditionally viewed as shelter, housing became a lucrative asset class for Wall Street, pricing first-time buyers out of the market and into much longer, if not permanent rentership. In essence, homeownership, once the cornerstone of middle-class wealth-building, has become a barrier to intergenerational mobility and financial stagnation across the nation.

Education

For millions, the promise of education as a ladder to the middle class has been replaced by the reality of debt servitude. The contradiction is vivid: some leaders who themselves graduated from low-cost public universities or received generous grants and GI Bill support now argue against expanding access to affordable education for today’s youth. Since the 1980s, public and private university tuition has soared, far outstripping inflation and wage growth. Specifically, what once could be covered with a summer job now often requires tens of thousands in loans that are uniquely stripped of the constitutional right of bankruptcy ensuring that student loan debt will accrue over decades for those whose parents were unable to pay for their higher education. Americans now owe over $1.7 trillion in student loans, an amount of consumer debt behind only mortgages and far outpacing auto loans. Consequently, young adults delay homebuying, marriage, and starting families under the crushing weight of student loan payments. 

Perhaps nowhere is this shift clearer than in California’s University of California (UC) system. For decades, public universities in California — including the prestigious UC campuses — were tuition-free, opening the doors of higher education to generations of working- and middle-class students. This model was rooted in the belief that accessible education fueled economic growth and social mobility. Yet, over time, the landscape changed dramatically. What was once an engine of opportunity is now, for many, a barrier that stunts the prospects of a vibrant, upwardly mobile middle class.

The Collapse of the Pension-Funded Retirement

A secure retirement was once the reward for a lifetime of labor. Union-negotiated pensions offered workers predictable, stable incomes in their golden years. But the landscape has changed dramatically. Over recent decades, the shift from employer-funded pensions to 401(k) plans has transferred risk from companies to workers. Not every worker has access to a 401(k), and many cannot afford to contribute enough. Retirements now hinge on the performance of the stock market, leaving millions exposed to downturns at the worst possible moment of ageism and economic vulnerability. Further, with political gridlock and demographic pressures, even Social Security’s future feels uncertain for many seniors leaving them in peril wondering if they’ll ever be able to retire without having to sell their primary homes and liquidate their assets.

Healthcare

Nowhere is the American Dream’s unraveling more apparent than in healthcare, where costs and coverage have become a constant worry. Medical expenses have soared faster than incomes, making even those with insurance vulnerable to bankruptcy from illness or injury. Furthermore, the link between jobs and health insurance has weakened, with employers shifting more costs to workers or dropping coverage altogether. Despite the Affordable Care Act, tens of millions remain uninsured or are forced into high-deductible plans where healthcare is unaffordable when they need it most. Health insecurity has become a uniquely American anxiety, undermining both productivity and peace of mind — a rather lamentable, yet totally avoidable situation for a so-called first world nation.

Citizens United

The 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission reshaped the American political landscape. By ruling that corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns, the Court unleashed a torrent of money into politics. The result of this decision was a direct line to wealthy individuals and corporations gaining outsized influence in shaping policies, often at the expense of middle- and working-class interests. Moreover, big-money donors push agendas that block reforms on healthcare, education, housing and labor, stymieing efforts to address the very crises hollowing out the middle class. 

Stock Buybacks

Once considered a form of market manipulation, stock buybacks have been revived as a standard corporate practice since the 1980s. Companies use profits not to raise wages or invest in workers, but to buy back their own shares boosting stock prices and rewarding executives. The benefits of buybacks flow disproportionately to wealthy shareholders and corporate insiders, widening the gulf between the affluent and everyone else. In addition, money spent on buybacks is money not spent on innovation, job creation, or worker training which undercuts long-term economic health and mobility.

Autopsy Results

This autopsy of the American Dream might reveal the causes of its death as we understand it historically. However, in understanding the failed policies that led to its slow demise over time, we find the antidote to revivify its promises. Resurrecting the middle class represents the nation’s foremost challenge, and accomplishing this objective requires a concerted commitment and decisive action. For example, increasing allocations to initiatives such as the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit can improve housing affordability for working families. Expanding state and federal investment into higher education and improvements to public service loan forgiveness programs, alongside the restoration of bankruptcy protections for student loan debt, would further support graduates facing financial hardship and enhance overall educational accessibility. 

Retirement security may be bolstered by reinforcing Social Security benefits and encouraging employers to establish robust pension schemes. Universal healthcare can be advanced through measures such as broadening Medicaid eligibility or introducing public health insurance options for those without employer-sponsored coverage. Campaign finance reform might entail enforcing rigorous standards of transparency in political contributions and setting equitable limits on campaign expenditures, as evidenced by certain state-level legislation. Finally, facilitating homeownership could involve implementing first-time homebuyer assistance initiatives for teachers and other community heroes whose traditional middle-class status has been eroded over time and foreclosure prevention strategies to support families during periods of economic instability. Collectively, these focused interventions, underpinned by the dedication of policymakers and citizens, lay the foundation for the rejuvenation of the American middle class.

Lisa Ansell is the Associate Director of the USC Casden Institute and Lecturer of Hebrew Language at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion Los Angeles.